President Obama's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, was approved yesterday by the Senate. As we had urged, however, lawmakers used the approval process to make sure Froman knows they aren't happy with the former USTR's secretive approach to trade agreements.

Their calls for transparency echo demands EFF and other public interest groups have been making for years in response to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and other trade agreements. Earlier this year, for example, EFF joined 24 other civil society groups on a letter to the Trade Representative documenting its abuse of the trade negotiation process and calling for a baseline of transparency.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the Senators who voted against Froman's confirmation yesterday, sent her own letter last week to the nominee, criticizing the "back-room dealmaking" that has until now characterized the process.

Policies that account for the public interest may require more careful drafting than those designed to cater to the corporate interests with access to the secret texts. But in her letter, Warren outlines the drawbacks of that closed negotiation process:

But if members of the public do not have reasonable access to the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they are unable to offer real input into the process. Without transparency, the benefit from robust democratic participation — an open marketplace of ideas — is considerably reduced.

We agree. Getting feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders helps form policies that enable our access to a free and open Internet. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy, and I think the U.S. Trade Representative should too.

Exactly right. The response to public opposition must be more participation by the public—not less.

Also in the last week, Representative Alan Grayson has made comments about an edited version of the TPP that he, as a member of the U.S. Congress, was allowed to read. Those statements reinforce our concerns about the agreement, and make it public scrutiny of it all the more crucial.

Representative Grayson first attacked the text on transparency grounds, calling it "an abuse of the classified information system." "What I saw was nothing that could possibly justify the secrecy that surrounds it."

And Representative Grayson goes on to find serious faults in the content of the agreement itself:

Having seen what I've seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty. And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that's fair to say from what I've seen so far. But I'm not allowed to tell you why!

The proposed agreement, Representative Grayson concludes, is nothing less than an "assault on democratic government."

The U.S. Trade Representative should respond to these claims, and that response should get to the root of the problem, by giving the public enough information to decide for itself whether or not the text is as dangerous as we fear. The administration wants us to trust it to defend our interests in the trade negotiation process, but we can't determine whether that trust is well-placed without access to the text.

In a hearing earlier this month before Trade Representative Froman's confirmation, Senator Ron Wyden—who has long campaigned for transparency and for policies that benefit a free and open Internet—had an opportunity to ask some questions. Froman's response (emphasis added) was encouraging:

I think it's critically important that we have very good transparency and very good consultations between the administration, between Congress, between key stakeholders and with the public at large.

Let's hope this statement is more than just lip service. Froman is right about the importance of transparency, and his new office has a long way to go to achieve that goal.

Related Updates

Special thanks to legal intern Maria Bacha who was the lead author of this post. EFF, Student Press Law Center (SPLC), Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment (PaCFA), and Brechner Center for Freedom of Information filed an amicus brief in B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District urging the U.S...

We pause this week to celebrate our longtime friend Gene Crick, a digital rights activist and former president of EFF-Austin, who passed away August 14 in Texas at age 73. Gene was a tireless advocate for free speech, a free, open, and inclusive Internet, and digital rights for everyone in...

Media outlets reported this week that an international student at Harvard University was deported back to Lebanon after border agents in Boston searched his electronic devices and confronted him about his friends’ social media posts. These allegations raise serious concerns about whether the government is following its own policies regarding...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last week became the first federal appellate court to rule that Section 230 bars civil terrorism claims against a social media company. The plaintiffs, who were victims of Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, argued that Facebook should be liable...

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and one of its component agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), released a Privacy Impact Assessment [.pdf] on CBP’s practice of monitoring social media to enhance the agency’s “situational awareness.” As we’ve argued in relation to other government social media surveillance...

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on “Protecting Digital Innocence.” The hearing covered a range of problems facing young people on the Internet today, with a focus on harmful content and privacy-invasive data practices by tech companies. While children do face problems online, some committee members seemed...

In a long-awaited ruling, the Second Circuit has found that the replies section on President Trump’s Twitter @realDonaldTrump is a public forum and that the President cannot block his critics from reading his tweets or participating in the forum merely because he dislikes the views they express. This ruling...

EFF is representing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, challenging on First Amendment grounds the practice of Texas A&M University of automatically and manually blocking PETA and its supporters from posting comments on the university's official Facebook page, a forum that is otherwise open for public comments. In response...

This month, in many parts of the world, the LGBTQ+ community is celebrating Pride and, both online and off, the tech industry has paid lip service to supporting the community. Many social media companies participate in Pride parades or offer photo filters or other digital swag for users to show...